The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new appeals. One of those is from a published Appellate Division decision, while the other appeal is from an unpublished opinion of a two-judge Appellate Division panel.

The appeal from the published opinion is Hoboken for Responsible Cannabis, Inc. v. City of Hoboken Planning Bd. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Did the submission of a complete application to the City of Hoboken Cannabis Review Board trigger the Municipal Land Use Law’s Time of Application Rule, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.5, which provides that the ‘development regulations which are in effect on the date of submission of an application for development shall govern the review of that application for development and any decision made with regard to that application for development’?” The Appellate Division, in an opinion reported at 480 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div. 2024), held that the time of application rule applied, reversing the Law Division’s decision that had vacated a resolution by the Planning Board that had granted a conditional use application to operate a cannabis retail business.

The other new appeal is East Orange Educational Support Professionals’ Ass’n v. East Orange Bd. of Educ. The question presented there is “Was the arbitrator’s decision -- that the East Orange Board of Education violated the collective bargaining agreement with its custodial employees when it ceased paying them extra compensation for reporting to work when schools were closed for COVID-19 -- reasonably debatable in light of N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-9(e)(1) (providing that during a state of emergency, school employees shall be compensated ‘as if the school facilities remained open’)?” The Chancery Division had confirmed the arbitrator’s award, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the arbitration award of extra compensation conflicted with the public policy embodied in N.J.S.A.18A:7F-9(e)(1).